Appendix F. ReCAP Cost Estimates

Appendix F. ReCAP Cost Estimates

ReCAP Shared Collection Cost Factors v.2 July 31, 2013 Page 1

Cost Factors and Cost-Sharing Formula for the ReCAP Shared Collection

Lizanne Payne

Summary of ReCAP Shared Collection

ReCAP partners have defined policies, technology, and operational changes that are deemed critical to

meet project goals: a ReCAP Shared Collection with seamless access for patrons of partner libraries. In

addition, certain policy and operational options that could be implemented in later phases may have

additional costs.

Phase 1 (baseline) system, services, and policies for the ReCAP Shared Collection:

Selection: Shareable monographs and serials already at or transferred in future to the ReCAP

facility will be declared part of the Shared Collection (unless otherwise excluded).

Duplication: No new duplicates may be added to the Shared Collection, but may be added to a

library’s Open Collection.

Disclosure: ReCAP libraries will report Shared Collection holdings to OCLC.

Condition Review: Volumes will be reviewed for minimum acceptable condition (similar to the

review currently being performed) upon initial transfer to ReCAP and upon circulation.

Access/Delivery: Shared Collection items will be available to all ReCAP partners for delivery to

the requesting library. Related workflow and policy changes:

o Revise pick cycles around requesting library

o Standardize delivery benchmarks

Technology: ReCAP partners will implement a Discovery to Delivery system to facilitate access to

Shared Collection materials.

Phase 1: Shared Collection Costs

Costs to implement and support the ReCAP Shared Collection will be affected primarily by the required

technology (Discovery to Delivery system) but also by necessary operational changes and by certain

policy choices.

1. Costs of Policies and Related Operational Changes

Certain policies and operational changes will affect the costs of implementing and operating the ReCAP

Shared Collection. Please see Attachment 1: ReCAP Costs Background for a detailed description of how

ReCAP activity costs and storage costs were estimated or attributed for this analysis. Please note that

these costs were not developed through a specific cost analysis, but rather are based on certain cost

allocation assumptions that are already in use for the ReCAP budget and cost-sharing formula. The

specific calculations used data from FY 13, the most recent complete fiscal year, but before making any


major decisions it would be useful to compare totals across multiple years to get an average or estimate

of variation.

a. Duplication: No new duplicates

Policy: No new duplicates may be added to the Shared Collection. Duplicate items may be added to the

library’s Open or Restricted Collection or may be withdrawn, at the library’s option. For serials,

duplication will be identified only at the title level; that is, for Phase 1 no effort will be made to

determine if a particular volume is at ReCAP prior to accession; if the title is already represented in

ReCAP, subsequent volumes will be designated for the Open Collection (unless/until a mechanism is

developed to compare volumes). Note: the proposed policy does not require removing existing

duplicates from the ReCAP facility.

Cost factors

Technology: Efficient deflection of duplicates will require an automated process to detect duplicates

before accession. A duplicate deflection function will be developed as part of the ReCAP middleware

(called “accession algorithm”) and is mentioned in the ReCAP High-Level Architecture 1.0 document

(HTC Global, Inc.). The duplicate detection system is already included in the system cost estimate (but is

not costed separately).

Accessions processing: The duplicate detection process may be designed to change the duplicating items

to the library’s Open collection automatically or may provide a report back to the library identifying

duplicates and requiring further action. An automatic change to the library’s Open collection during

ingest would have no effect on accession processing for those items (e.g. they would have been

accessioned anyway). If the sending library chooses to receive a report of potential duplicates instead,

significant staff time at the library could be required to review and reprocess volumes.

Space: If duplicates are deflected from the Shared Collection but added to the Open Collections as

allowed under the new policy, space at ReCAP will be used that could have been saved. Assuming that

the duplication rate for future accessions is the same as the current 11% duplication rate within the

facility, the additional cost could be estimated as follows (using FY 13 amounts):

Annual accessions (volumes)

Duplication rate

Duplicate/triplicate accessions (volumes)

Attributed unit cost of accessioning additional volumes

Activity cost of accessioning future duplicate volumes

Attributed unit cost of storing additional volumes

Annual cost of storing future duplicate volumes

434,081 11% 47,749 $ 0.81 $ 38,677 $ 0.11 $ 5,252


b. Disclosure: Report Shared Collection holdings to WorldCat

The proposed Disclosure Policy states that “ReCAP libraries will report Shared Collection holdings to

OCLC and will monitor and adopt as appropriate the emerging national standards and guidelines related

to shared print collections.” This policy is consistent with a goal of the ReCAP Shared Collection project:

“to position ReCAP to take on a broader role within a national network of shared-print repositories”.

In April 2012, a working group from the shared print community proposed “Print Archives Metadata

Guidelines” for reporting “print archives” or “shared print” holdings in OCLC WorldCat. The purpose of

these guidelines is to promote worldwide sharing through WorldCat of information about long-term

retention agreements for library holdings.

For ReCAP partners to disclose ReCAP Shared Collection materials using the current guidelines would

require the following steps:

• Establish 3 new OCLC Symbols (e.g. NYPSP, ZCUSP, PULSP) to be assigned to partner

library Shared Collection holdings at ReCAP

• Create and upload Local Holding Records (LHRs) to OCLC containing the basic retention

information for Shared Collection holdings (these records can be batch-created)

• Remove the original OCLC symbol from the Shared Collection records in WorldCat (this

can be processed in batch by OCLC)

• Process ILL requests for Shared Collection items in ILLIAD, WorldShare ILL, or Borrow

Direct using a separate request queue for the SP symbol

Cost factors

Please note that some work to mark local holdings with retention information is necessary regardless of

the desire to disclose this information to OCLC. It will be needed to support ReCAP partners’ own

management of the Shared Collection in local library systems. Most of the costs outlined below are

those that would be specific to the goal of reporting and managing Shared Collection holdings in OCLC

WorldCat and related systems, separate from any local metadata.

OCLC cataloging: No charge for establishing new symbols. One-time setup costs for OCLC LHR batch

loads for new symbols: ~$350 x 3= $1,050. Library systems staff time to generate shared print metadata

in local catalogs (needed anyway) and to generate files for LHR loads. Optional: develop a function in the

ReCAP Discovery/Delivery system to generate and maintain OCLC LHRs (not currently included in the

high-level design). Library cataloging staff time to edit individual records (if needed) under the new OCLC

symbol.

Resource-sharing: ILLIAD satellite license for new symbol ($1,200 annually) or Worldshare ILL lend-only

subscription for new symbol ($300 annually). Workflow changes, training, and library staff and ReCAP

staff time to process different ILL request queues for Shared Collection items.


c. Condition review (validation)

Items being transferred to ReCAP for the Shared Collection must meet agreed standards for Minimum

Acceptable Condition (similar to requirements already in place). No explicit condition reporting is

required. Items not meeting those standards could be added to the library’s Open Collection. No

condition review is required for items that are already in ReCAP until they circulate.

Shared Collection items that circulate will be reviewed again upon return from circulation. Volumes not

meeting minimum standards would be considered high priorities for replacement, but would not be

removed from the Shared Collection since possibly the only copy.

Cost factors

Initial transfer to ReCAP: Workflow changes, training, and library staff time to process review for

acceptable condition (but similar to procedures already in place). Workflow procedures will be needed

to change the collection type to Open for any items that do not meet condition standards.

Review upon circulation: Workflow changes, training, and library staff and/or ReCAP staff time to review

circulated items again and update metadata to flag for replacement. Consideration should be given to

doing this review centrally at ReCAP prior to refiling, to simplify training and maximize efficiency. A

ReCAP system function could be developed to automatically add the “replace” flag or note upon reading

the barcode of the affected volume.

d. Access/Delivery

Shared Collection items will be available to all ReCAP partners for delivery to the requesting library. It

will be necessary to change certain ReCAP procedures to accommodate this change.

i. Revise pick cycles around requesting library

With the Shared Collection and Discovery/Delivery system, library users are more likely to request

volumes belonging to other ReCAP partners. Each transport (delivery) to a ReCAP library is more likely to

contain volumes from other library customer codes. Therefore it may be preferable to revise the pick

cycles to pull all items for a given requesting library (no matter which owner or customer code).

Cost factors:

Technology: Implement changes to the GFA system to produce pick lists grouped by delivery

location rather than owner

Workflow changes, training, and ReCAP staff time: Little or no change to workflows would be

necessary if the pick lists were modified.


ii. Standardize delivery benchmarks

Currently ReCAP supports separate delivery benchmarks for each partner library (e.g. “2 business days”,

“next business day by 5:00 pm”). If the pick cycles were separated from owning library customer codes,

it would be possible to establish a standard delivery benchmark and schedule pick cycles and transport

pickups to meet that benchmark.

Cost factors:

Transport costs: Each ReCAP partner currently sets the schedule and pays for its pickups and returns

to ReCAP. Most likely there would be no cost impact, but conceivably the transport cost might be

increased for a given library if its schedule moved into rush hours instead of off-peak hours.

2. Costs of Technology: Discovery to Delivery System

The proposed ReCAP Discovery to Delivery System will support discovery of Shared Collection items,

real-time availability tracking, real-time request processing, and collection management (including

duplicate detection and management). The proposed system is designed as a cloud-based middleware

system and database that is integrated with each ReCAP library’s local discovery system and with

request and circulation transactions supported by ReCAP partner library systems. See the related report:

ReCAP High-Level Architecture 1.0 (HTC Global, Inc.)

Estimated implementation costs

Cost Category Planning Estimate

Source of Planning Estimate

Discovery/Delivery middleware implementation

$2,000,000 Technology Architect report

Interfaces to partner systems $ 200,000 Various vendors and related estimates

Technology consultant (two years) $ 150,000 Derived from Technology Consultant costs

Project management consultant (two years)

$ 150,000 Derived from Planning Consultant costs

Estimated one-time total $2,500,000

Estimated annual operating costs

Cost Category Planning Estimate

Source of Planning Estimate

Discovery/delivery middleware support

$ 70,000 Technology Architect report (rounded)

Interfaces to partner systems support

$ 10,000 5% of implementation cost

Additional Princeton management fee

$ 20,000 Additional 10% of current fee

Estimated annual total $ 100,000


Phase 2: Policies and processes for later consideration

Certain policies and processes were identified during planning that may be desirable but were

postponed for later phases in order to define a more manageable scope and cost for initial

implementation.

1. Compile backfiles of serials at ReCAP with validation for completeness

The proposed Phase 1 policy states that all serial titles at ReCAP will be designated as Shared (unless

explicitly excluded) but with no active efforts to develop complete backfiles. Under any future policy to

compile backfiles, the process would require the following actions for each individual title or journal

family (sequence of title changes):

Identify all Shared Collection titles and volumes held at ReCAP (automated process),

Choose the deepest backfile as the base run and identify other existing volumes at ReCAP to fill

gaps (semi-automated process with staff review)

Update Shared Collection records to record backfile holdings

Change unneeded duplicate volumes to Open collection for future disposition (staff or automated

process).

Note: this section does not include any actions or costs required to compare duplicate volumes for best

physical condition. See the similar section below under “Remove duplicates from ReCAP”.

Cost factors

Technology: reports to identify ReCAP serial holdings including deepest backfile; function to

record completed backfile holdings in Shared Collection title record; function to change

duplicate volumes to Open collection; function to display needed volumes for new accessions

Workflow, training, staff: Update Shared Collection records to record volumes still needed

(gaps); compare future serial volumes to existing Shared Collection volumes to determine

whether to transfer to ReCAP

2. Validate volumes for “reportable condition” problems

In addition to the Minimum Acceptable Condition standards described for Phase 1, other condition

problems could be identified that are not significant enough to preclude items from the Shared

Collection but are important enough to report (via metadata) and seek better copies.

Cost factors: Staff time to review volumes against a list of reportable condition criteria (to be defined)

and update records to report the problems found. If a “reportable condition” policy were instituted, this

review could occur on initial transfer to ReCAP and optionally again after circulation of the volume.


The Western Regional Storage Trust (WEST) program uses an estimate of $4.00 per volume as the

attributed unit cost for volume-level accessions with validation. This cost estimate covers physical

handling and metadata updates and was derived from a cost study conducted at the University of

California Shared Print Program in 2008. For ReCAP cost estimating, it would be reasonable to attribute

$2.00 of that cost to the condition review portion, separate from the accessions cost.

Using that attributed unit cost, the estimated annual cost to review and report “reportable conditions”

would be:

Annual accessions (volumes)

Attributed unit cost of condition review

Estimated annual cost of reportable condition review

434,081 $ 2.00 $ 868,162

3. Provide retrievals and delivery 7 days/week

Delivery every day may facilitate acceptance of the Shared Collection among library users.

Cost factors:

Performing retrievals and delivery on Saturdays and Sundays would require additional shifts at

ReCAP for more pick cycles and refiling (overnight and/or weekends),

Two additional transport pick-ups for each partner library each week,

Staffing for libraries to receive and process weekend deliveries.

4. Remove existing duplicates from ReCAP

Removing existing duplicate volumes from ReCAP would require the following actions:

Identify duplicate (or triplicate) volumes already shelved at ReCAP

Optional: Compare volumes for best physical condition

Dispose of removed volumes and update records

. Cost factors:

Technology: During the initial process to create the Shared Collection, the system would

designate one copy for the Shared Collection and the other(s) for the Open Collection (based on

an algorithm). This process could produce a file/report for use in any future deduplicating.

Workflow, training, staff time without condition comparison: retrieve the corresponding Open

Collection volume(s), discard, update records.

Workflow, training, staff time with condition comparison: retrieve all volumes, compare, refile

the chosen volume, discard the not-chosen volumes, update records

Space: Holding area for volumes pending discard. With condition review, twice as much holding

space is needed to stage volumes while under review, plus work space to compare volumes.

Discard costs: Costs to transport, ship, or recycle discarded volumes.


Some costs of removing existing duplicates can be estimated using current attributed unit costs. However, please note that it is likely that unit

costs would go down for a high volume of concentrated activity, i.e. in a production environment. A more detailed analysis should be performed

before making a major decision about removing existing duplicates.

The following assumptions were used to calculate these estimates:

Duplicate removal without condition comparison is composed of

o 1 Retrieval per removed volume @ $3.38

o 1 Withdrawal per removed volume (to update the record) = 1 Accession @ $.81

Duplicate removal with condition comparison is composed of these additional cost factors:

o 1 additional Retrieval to include the Shared Collection volume @ $3.38

o 1 Condition Review per reviewed volume @ $2.00

o 1 Refile per retained Shared Collection volume @ $3.38

Using these assumptions, the estimated one-time cost to remove existing duplicates in ReCAP (11% of current space) would be:

Without condition review With condition review

Category Titles Est Total Volumes

Vols to Remove

Retrieve dup vols

Withdrawal dup vols

Total before Condition

Review Retrieve

Shared vol Review all

vols Refile

chosen vol

Total w/ Condition

Review

$ 3.38 $ 0.81 $ 3.38 $ 2.00 $ 3.38

Duplicates 471,593

943,186

471,593 $ 1,593,984 $ 381,990 $ 1,975,975 $ 1,593,984 $ 1,886,372 $ 1,593,984 $ 7,050,315

Triplicates 48,880

146,640

97,760 $ 330,429 $ 79,186 $ 409,614 $ 165,214 $ 293,280 $ 330,429 $ 1,198,538

Total duplication

520,473

1,089,826 $ 1,924,417 $ 461,177 $ 2,385,589 $ 1,759,202 $ 2,179,654 $ 1,924,417 $ 8,248,862

Please note: this estimate covers only the activities and transaction costs to remove duplicates. It does not include any estimate to recover the

space freed by those duplicates. There would be significant additional costs to consolidate the remaining trays and shelves to recover the space.

Thus the estimate of over $2 million (without condition comparison) or over $8 million (with condition comparison) is BEFORE space recovery

which requires costs that are almost impossible to estimate.


Proposed cost-sharing formula

The following planning assumptions were used to develop a revised cost-sharing formula to support the

annual operating costs of the ReCAP Discovery System and Shared Collection.

• Use the existing ReCAP cost-sharing formula as a base for the ReCAP Shared Collection formula;

i.e. retain the existing cost factors, do not revise definitions and allocations.

• Show the Discovery System operating costs explicitly. Do not include the one-time system

implementation costs in this formula.

The original ReCAP cost-sharing formula uses the following structure:

• Costs are divided into two primary expense categories: “Accessions, retrievals, refiles” (ARR) and

Storage

• ARR costs are based on Activity Units, actual transactions attributable to individual partners,

converted to a percent of all transactions

• Storage costs are based on Allocated Shelves, the percentage of ReCAP shelves occupied by or

reserved for each partner’s holdings

• ReCAP budget line items (e.g. Labor, Utilities, Repairs) are allocated across ARR and Storage in

various agreed proportions (such as Clerical Labor divided as 80% ARR and 20% Storage).

• The “calculated split of expenses” (cost-sharing formula) divides the ReCAP budget line items

among the ReCAP partners according to their individual ARR and Storage percentages.

Several options were considered for modifying the current cost-sharing formula to accommodate the

new Shared Collection and Discovery/Delivery system, including "no change" and "equal shares". After

some discussion, the following approach is considered the most viable.

Proposed Shared Collection formula

ReCAP partners support the following principles to be accomplished by the new formula:

• Encourage contributions to the Shared Collection to facilitate preservation and resource-sharing

• Discourage contributions to the Open Collections (shareable but not part of the Shared

Collection) to minimize the impact on ReCAP shelving capacity, while supporting use of ReCAP space for

Restricted materials (usually special collections).

• Recognize the new borrowing patterns that may emerge using the Discovery/Delivery system

• Minimize the impact of the formula change on individual ReCAP partners whose fees may

increase.

• Adapt to changing usage and priorities over time through regular review of the cost-sharing

formula.

ReCAP partners proposed the following plan to modify the existing ReCAP cost-sharing formula to

support these principles:

1) Divide costs for Storage into two subcategories:


• Storage of the partner collections (Open and Restricted) using the current storage allocation, for

now

• Storage of the Shared Collection, divided proportionally by share of the Shared Collection

2. Assign a higher cost to the partner collections and a lower cost to the Shared Collection

3. Calculate and charge Retrievals and Refiles based on borrowing library rather than owning

library (customer code)

Under this approach, ReCAP partners would continue to pay for their holdings in the Shared Collection

(and would continue to own them), but their Shared Collection fees would be subsidized, in effect, by

the higher amounts paid for private partner collections. See Attachment 2: Possible New ReCAP Cost-

Sharing Formula based on this formula.


Attachment 1

ReCAP Costs Background

The following cost factors and assumptions were used as background for estimating costs of certain

ReCAP policy options or service options. Please note that these costs were not developed through a

specific cost analysis, but rather are based on certain cost allocation assumptions that are already in use

for the ReCAP budget and cost-sharing formula (described below and details attached).

Cost assumptions

Under the approach used for the ReCAP budget and cost-sharing formula, ReCAP facility costs are

divided into costs for Activities and for Storage. Budget line item expenditures such as Labor, Utilities,

etc are attributed across Storage and Activities (ARR) by an agreed formula. Total ARR and Storage

budgets/expenditures can then be calculated by aggregating these attributed costs.

Based on ReCAP FY 13 budget

ARR Storage Total

Total Allocated Cost $1,276,343 $1,146,146 $2,422,489

Further calculations can be performed to estimate attributed expenditures for individual activity units or

storage units. See the attachment for detailed calculations that are summarized below.

Activities

As part of the current ReCAP budgeting process, transactions for Accessions, Retrievals, Refiles, and ILL

(ARR) are weighted to normalize the activities so they can be analyzed equally. That is, projected

transaction quantities are converted to Activity Units such that one “Accessions” Activity Unit is worth

the same as one “Retrieval” Activity Unit.

Expenditures for individual activity types (e.g. accessions, retrievals) can then be calculated by dividing

ARR expenditures proportionally for each activity type.

Costs by Activity Type Based on ReCAP FY 13 budget

Activity Type FY 13 Activity Units Activity Unit % Share of ARR cost

Accessions 518,264 27.4% $349,935

Retrievals 638,695 33.8% $431,251

Refiles 657,200

34.8% $443,746

Interlibrary Loans 76,140 4.0% $51,410

Total 1,890,299

100% $1,276,343


Attributed Unit Costs for Activity Types Based on ReCAP FY 13 Budget and Actual

Activity Type FY 13 Share of ARR Cost

FY 13 Actual Transactions

Attributed Unit Cost

Accessions $349,935 434,081 $0.81

Retrievals $431,251 127,739 $ 3.38

Refiles $443,746 131,440 $ 3.38

Interlibrary Loans $51,410 15,228 $ 3.38

Reminder note: These activity type costs and attributed unit costs were not based on a detailed cost

analysis of the actual work required to process these activities. Rather, these cost estimates are based

on the cost allocation formula already agreed by the ReCAP partners as a method for developing and

sharing the ReCAP facility costs.

Storage

Storage costs can be described in terms of two different units: shelves and items.

Attributed Annual Unit Costs for Storage (Modules 1-5 only)

Storage Unit Quantity FY 13 Share of Storage Cost

Attributed Unit Cost

Items 10,230,226 $1,146,146 $0.11 per item

Shelves allocated 74,421 $1,146,146 $ 15.40 per shelf

Item counts are a more difficult measure because of the widely varying sizes of stored items (e.g. a

volume vs an archive box). The unit cost per item is average across all types.

The attributed costs for Activity Units and for Storage are used in various calculations in the following

sections to estimate the cost impact of various policy or service options. Please note that these cost

estimates and impacts are very rough measures devised through general cost attribution as described

here.


Attachment 2

Illustration of Possible New ReCAP Cost-Sharing Formula

ARR (1)

Shared

Coll

Storage

(3)

Partner

Coll

Storage (3) ARR Amt

Shared Coll

Amt

Partner Coll

Amt Total

Example using

FY 13 Budget

rounded

Labor 25% 75%

Administrative 50% 13% 38% 112,000 28,000 84,000 100% 224,000

Clerical 80% 5% 15% 624,800 39,050 117,150 100% 781,000

Cleaning 75% 6% 19% 15,000 1,250 3,750 100% 20,000

Repairs & Maintenance 50% 13% 38% 79,500 19,875 59,625 100% 159,000

Utilities 20% 20% 60% 111,600 111,600 334,800 100% 558,000

Roads, Grounds, & Security 75% 6% 19% 88,500 7,375 22,125 100% 118,000

Administrative

Insurance 20% 20% 60% 15,000 15,000 45,000 100% 75,000

All Other 80% 5% 15% 69,600 4,350 13,050 100% 87,000

PU Management Fee 60% 10% 30% 121,200 20,200 60,600 100% 202,000

Major Maintenance 20% 20% 60% 40,000 40,000 120,000 100% 200,000

Discovery System (2) 75% 25% 0% 75,000 25,000 0 100% 100,000

Total 1,352,200 311,700 860,100 2,524,000

Princeton Columbia * NYPL ** Total

Accessions 440,000 208,000 350,000 998,000

Retrievals 120,000 371,000 186,000 677,000

Refiles 135,000 385,000 205,000 725,000

Interlibrary Loans 32,500 46,000 12,000 90,500

Total 727,500 1,010,000 753,000 2,490,500

Percent 29.2% 40.6% 30.2% 100.0%

Princeton Columbia NYPL Total

Shared Coll Storage Share 27% 41% 32% 100% from ReCAP shareable holdings analysis Fall 2012

Partner Storage Share 21% 42% 37% 100% from current ReCAP formula

Calculated Split of Expenses Princeton Columbia NYPL Total

Labor

Administrative 57,916 92,181 73,903 224,000$

Clerical 217,655 318,596 244,749 781,000$

Cleaning 5,507 8,171 6,323 20,000$

Repairs & Maintenance 41,110 65,432 52,458 159,000$

Utilities 133,039 231,630 193,330 558,000$

Roads, Grounds, & Security 32,489 48,207 37,304 118,000$

Administrative - - - -$

Insurance 17,882 31,133 25,985 75,000$

All Other 24,246 35,490 27,264 87,000$

PU Management Fee 53,584 82,886 65,531 202,000$

Major Maintenance 47,684 83,022 69,294 200,000$

Discovery System 28,658 40,666 30,676 100,000$ placeholder estimate

Total 659,771 1,037,412 826,817 2,524,000

Resulting percentage 26% 41% 33% 100%

Comparison to current formula

Current formula totals 613,523 998,991 809,975 2,422,489 Planned FY 13 (before surpluses applied)

New formula totals 659,771 1,037,412 826,817 2,524,000 rounded, Discovery System added

change 46,248 38,421 16,842 101,511

per cent increase 7% 4% 2% 4%

overall

(2) Discovery System expenses attributed 75% to ARR and 25% to Shared Collection Storage.

(3) Storage divided 25% to Shared Collection Storage and 75% to Partner Storage (to cover most expenses via Partner Storage)

Activity Units FY 13 Projected

Allocated Shelves

The Research Collections and Preservation Consortium, Inc.

Illustration of Possible New Cost-Sharing Formula using FY 13 Budget

Under this option, costs attributed to Storage would be divided into two categories: 1) Storage of the Partner Collections (Open and

Restricted) divided according to the current storage allocation, and 2) Storage of the Shared Collection divided proportionally by share

of the Shared Collection. In addition, this formula assigns a higher portion of the costs to the partner collections and a lower cost to

the Shared Collection.

Preliminary Illustration

(1) Accessions, Retrievals, Refiles. Retrievals/refiles based on requester, not owner. Original owner estimates used in this illustration.

Appendix G. Business models in other shared print programs

Payne: Governance and Policies at Other Shared Print Programs July 24, 2012 Page 1

ReCAP Discovery to Delivery Project

Governance and Polices at Other Shared Print Programs

Lizanne Payne

July 24, 2012

This report is required under planning activity 3.

3. Determine options for policy changes, including new mechanisms for the governance, ownership, and

permanence of collections held at ReCAP and if necessary of the ReCAP relationship

a. Outline and compare governance mechanisms and policies at other library consortia with shared print collections.

Overview

A large number of library consortia or other library groups have entered into shared collection

agreements over the past several years. For purposes of this document, a “shared collection

agreement” refers to a formal agreement among multiple libraries to share responsibility for,

management of, and access to a defined set of print materials. These agreements are variously

described as “shared collections”, “shared print collections”, or “print archives”. “Shared collection(s)”

will be used in this context because that is the terminology used in the ReCAP Discovery to Delivery

Proposal.

Libraries and consortia developing a shared collections program typically define an agreement that

covers three aspects of the collaboration:

1. Operating policies (how the shared collection functions, including most or all of the following):

a. Selection of materials to preserve

b. Retention commitment (period of time)

c. Archiving location(s)

d. Ownership

e. Validation standards (review for completeness and condition)

f. Holdings disclosure standards

g. Access/delivery policies.

2. Business model (how – or if – costs are covered)

3. Governance (how decisions are made)


Agreement on all of these terms and conditions is usually embodied in a formal document, ranging from

a posted statement of principles, to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), to a signed legal

agreement.

The following section outlines the most common approaches taken by existing shared collection

programs, followed by details of selected programs.

Common Attributes of Current Shared Collection Programs

Selection

“Selection” refers to the process or criteria used to identify materials that will belong to the shared

collection.

The majority of current shared collections focus on journals, most likely because of these characteristics:

Many are available in digital form, sometimes with digital preservation as well (Portico or

CLOCKSS), such that use of the print version has declined significantly

Large amounts of shelf space can be reclaimed with a decision about a single title

The most common method for selecting or identifying journals for the shared collection is by publisher

or digital aggregator (e.g. “JSTOR journals” or “Elsevier journals”). Other methods include:

Individual library-nominated titles (ASERL journal program)

Shared storage copy becomes shared collection copy (Florida, WRLC)

Custom collection analysis across members (WEST, COPPUL)

A few programs identify monographs in the form of “last copy” policies. If a given monograph happens

to be the last copy of that work held within that group of libraries, the program defines a process for

retaining it on behalf of the group. For example, the University of Illinois accepts last-copy monographs

on behalf of the CARLI consortium.

A few groups are beginning to consider shared monograph collections in a more proactive way, by

attempting to identify large classes of monographs to be held in a shared collection. The HathiTrust is

considering program for its members to retain copies of volumes available in digital form through Hathi.

The Midwest Collaborative for Library Services (MCLS) is in the early stages of implementing a shared

monograph collection based on a data-driven analysis of member holdings.

Retention commitment

The retention commitment is the single most important factor in a shared collection agreement. The

retention commitment is what distinguishes a shared collection from a resource-sharing agreement or

from a shared storage facility. With a retention commitment, participating libraries agree to keep the

designated materials for a specified (or unspecified) period of time for use by other program


participants under defined access policies. The retention commitment allows other participating

libraries to consider deselecting their own copies by relying on the retained copies held by others.

Some of the earliest shared collection agreements did not specify an explicit time period, implying that

the retention agreement extended indefinitely or in perpetuity. CRL’s JSTOR Archive is an example.

More recent agreements tend to establish a finite time period such as 25 years or even 10 years, at

which time the agreement will be reviewed and either extended or canceled.

There is a natural tension between the goals of the retaining libraries and the potentially-borrowing

libraries. The borrowing libraries may prefer a longer retention period to cover their potential

borrowing needs for the longest time. The retaining libraries may prefer a shorter retention period to

minimize the time when their local collection management decisions are constrained. An argument

often given for a near-term defined retention period (e.g. 10 or 25 years) is that digital technology may

have changed so much in that time that the need for a shared print collection should be reassessed.

Archiving Location(s)

Shared collections may be established in a centralized or distributed pattern, and may involve

specialized library storage facilities or traditional campus library locations. For instance, the Orbis

Cascade Alliance Distributed Print Repository (DPR) program is (of course) distributed among member

library locations, as is the ASERL Collaborative Journal Retention Program. The CIC Shared Print

Repository currently is centralized at the Indiana University high-density library storage facility; similarly,

the Five Colleges consortium in Massachusetts maintains a centralized shared collection at the Five

Colleges facility.

Ownership

All shared collection programs grapple with the issue of ownership: which entity will own the physical

volumes designated in the shared collection. There are three potential owners that could be identified:

The original owning library

The retaining library (if different)

The consortium or program (if a separate entity).

Transferring ownership of library materials tends to be complicated. Most universities or research

institutions classify library collections as assets and are likely to require explicit procedures for disposing

of such assets. These procedures are often especially onerous for publicly-funded institutions.

As a result, most shared collection programs define ownership of the shared materials as remaining with

the original owner. In many cases, especially for distributed collections, the original owner is also the

retaining library. In some cases (e.g. WEST, Florida FLARE), if the original owner donates volumes to a

retaining library, the original owner is asked to gift those volumes to the retaining library.


In a very small number of cases, the shared collection becomes the property of the consortium itself.

This is true for the CRL JSTOR Archive and the Five Colleges (Mass.) Library Depository.

Validation standards

In some cases, shared collection programs are establishing validation standards to define the level of

review for completeness and condition that will be performed on these materials. Validation standards

support preservation goals by setting minimum standards for accepting physical items into the shared

collection and standards for reporting gaps and condition problems through metadata.

At present only a small number of shared collection programs such as WEST and CIC SPR have defined

explicit validation standards.

Holdings disclosure standards

Shared collection programs typically define how the shared materials will be reflected in catalog

records, and which catalogs will contain those records (e.g local OPAC, consortial OPAC or other system,

OCLC WorldCAT). Especially in earlier days, this often involved detailed locally-specific guidelines for

what information to record in the local ILS or consortial catalog with no attention paid to disseminating

shared collection information more widely.

However, in April 2012, the OCLC Print Archives Metadata Guidelines were published by an ad hoc group

that had worked to define a common metadata format for wide disclosure of print retention

commitments through OCLC WorldCAT. These guidelines define a community standard for using MARC

Holdings Records with 583 Action Notes to describe the retention commitment and the results of any

validation that was performed. A blog post by OCLC Research provides a good description and a link to

the guidelines document (http://hangingtogether.org/?p=1734)

Also, the Center for Research Libraries (CRL) is developing the Print Archives Preservation Registry

(PAPR) knowledgebase, which also uses the Print Archives Metadata Guidelines as the standard for input

data. PAPR will provide an online searchable registry of archived print holdings and descriptive

information about shared collection programs. PAPR is expected to be released for public use in early

August 2012.

Access/delivery policies

Some of the most important policies to be defined by shared collection programs are those that govern

access and delivery. Shared collections need to define:

Who will have access to the shared materials

How will requests be made and fulfilled

What forms of delivery will be offered


What restrictions on use will be applied

A small number of shared collections are defining “dark archives” that are intended to preserve the

materials indefinitely and make them available only in extreme circumstances. Examples include the

dark archive copy of PALCI holdings at Penn State, the University of California and Harvard dark archives

for JSTOR titles, and a planned JSTOR dark archive at the University of Minnesota.

Most shared collections, however, have defined “light archives” where the materials regularly are made

available to partner libraries on request. Non-retaining partner libraries are better able to reclaim local

shelf space if they can be assured that shared materials will be provided to them if needed; “dark

archives” do not provide the same assurance of ready access.

One of the questions to be considered is whether requests will be fulfilled on a priority basis for

members. The answer sometimes depends on the presence of an existing shared catalog with request

feature. Programs among partners that do not share a catalog/request system may need to determine

whether traditional ILL request systems will be used, or whether a new mechanism or borrowing

agreement will be established. WEST member libraries decided not to provide prioritized or expedited

request/delivery to WEST members because the libraries are already supporting several different

resource-sharing agreements and they felt that the expected usage of WEST materials would be very

low and not worth the effort of supporting a special borrowing agreement.

Shared collection programs often place special use restrictions on these materials, however. Because

other libraries are depending on long-term access to the shared materials and may have deselected

their own copies, shared collection programs often require “in-library use” of the physical item to

minimize the chance of loss or damage.

Business Model

Each shared collection program must decide how to cover the costs of establishing, maintaining, and

using the shared collection. Related decisions must be made about whether to collect funds from

members to support these costs.

Participants incur costs in the following categories:

Selection and collection analysis (staff time, systems and/or database)

Space (indirect costs of facility financing, utilities, maintenance)

Ingest (handling, validating, shelving volumes)

Metadata update (changing bibliographic and holdings records per disclosure policies)

Shipping volumes to retaining libraries

Deselecting local volumes

Project management and administration


The vast majority of current shared collection programs – especially those that are distributed

collections -- operate on a “share/share alike” basis. In these cases, each participating library absorbs its

own costs and no money changes hands. The underlying assumption is that all libraries are investing an

equitable amount to the collaborative effort.

A small number of programs have developed business models in which members pay fees to support the

shared collection. Both WEST and the CIC Shared Print Repository identified a set of costs that would be

shared among all members as a way to support the collective goals. For WEST, shared costs include:

Payments to Archive Builders to support ingesting and validating materials

Use of CRL’s PAPR system for collection analysis

Project management and administration

The business model for CIC SPR includes support for ingesting materials and also covers payments to

Indiana University for use of its storage facility space.

Governance

Shared collection programs need to define mechanisms for determining who is a member and how

decisions are made. Some form of governance supports sustainability over time when the original

collaborators may no longer be involved.

Almost all shared collection programs were established within existing library consortia and rely on the

existing consortium structures to provide the basic framework for shared collections governance. This is

true for the CIC Shared Print Repository, ASERL Collaborative Journal Retention Program, and many

others. The WEST program is unusual for being a broad-scale collaborative effort that was defined

outside of existing consortial agreements. In effect WEST established a new consortium specifically to

administer the shared collection.

Agreement

Even if the shared collection operates within an existing consortium, it is necessary to define the specific

terms and conditions of the shared collection through some kind of agreement. The agreement usually

identifies some or all of the following terms and conditions:

Membership: Who are the members or participants and (optional) criteria for adding future

participants

Governance: Organizing body(ies) that will make decisions on behalf of the group

Basic operating policies: Retention period, ownership, disclosure, access and delivery.

Sometimes the main agreement refers to external documents that may contain these details.

Titles archived: For libraries that agree to retain materials, a list or other means of identifying

the titles for which that member is responsible

Loss or damage: Level of effort expected to replace or compensate for lost or damaged items


Financial obligations: Description of how any required fees are established. Usually the fees are

not included explicitly but may be referenced in an attachment to facilitate future changes.

Withdrawal and termination: Process for an individual member to withdraw from the

agreement, and any process for the overall agreement to be terminated by the group.

For shared collections that involve long-term commitments to specific individual titles and especially in

cases where funds are collected from members, the agreement almost always takes the form of a

document such as an MOU that must be signed explicitly by representatives of the member institutions.

In less structured cases, such as shared storage facilities where the deposited volumes become the

shared copy of record, the agreement may take the form of a document adopted by the governing body

and posted in a public place such as the group’s website (e.g. WRLC Shared Collection).

Current Programs

The following section provides summary details for a selection of current shared collection programs:

ASERL Cooperative Journal Retention Program

CRL JSTOR Print Archive Project

CIC Shared Print Repository

COPPUL Shared Print Archive Network (SPAN)

Five College (MA) Library Depository

Florida Academic Repository (FLARE)

Midwest Collaborative for Library Services (MCLS) Shared Monographic Print Storage Project

Orbis Cascade Alliance Distributed Print Repository

Pennsylvania Academic Library Consortium (PALCI) Print Journal Archive

Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC) Shared Collection

Western Regional Storage Trust (WEST)


Program Name: ASERL Cooperative Journal Retention Program Website: http://www.aserl.org/programs/cooperative-journal-retention/ Link to MOU: http://www.aserl.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ASERL_Journal_Retention_Agreement_FINAL.pdf Members: 22 out of 40 ASERL libraries Format Archived: Journals Selection: Titles nominated by participating libraries. Archive location: Distributed, libraries and storage facilities Retention Period: Through December 31, 2035 Ownership: Original owner Validation: Volume level, “serviceable condition” Access/Delivery: No request mechanism specified. Delivery by electronic or paper duplication, or in-

house use at discretion of the owning library Business Model: Libraries absorb own expenses Governance: Steering Committee consisting of one representative of each participating library

and a liaison from the ASERL Board of Directors


Program Name: Center for Research Libraries (CRL) JSTOR Print Archive Project Website: http://www.crl.edu/archiving-preservation/print-archives/crl-administered/jstor Link to MOU: Not available Members: Open to all 260 CRL members Format Archived: Journals Selection: By publisher or aggregator: JSTOR titles Archive location: Centralized at CRL facility Retention Period: Not specified Ownership: Transfers to CRL Validation: Issue-level Access/Delivery: Physical volumes by ILL to the requesting library. Business Model: Part of CRL membership. Libraries absorb own costs of donation and shipping. Governance: Existing CRL governance. No separate governance for this program.


Program Name: CIC Shared Print Repository Website: http://www.cic.net/Home/Projects/Library/Home.aspx Link to MOU: Not available Members: 10 of 13 CIC members Format Archived: Journals Selection: By publisher: Elsevier and Wiley titles Archive location: Centralized at Indiana University storage facility Retention Period: 25 years, to Dec. 31, 2035 Ownership: Original owner Validation: Volume-level Access/Delivery: Delivery by electronic or paper duplication, or transfer to the requesting library for

in-house use Business Model: Annual member fees to cover ingest, storage, transport, project administration. Governance: Governing Board composed of the Library Directors of the participating CIC libraries

and the Director of the Center for Library Initiatives (ex officio).


Program Name: Council on Prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL) Shared Print Archive Network (SPAN)

Website: http://coppul.ca/projects/SPAN.html Link to MOU: http://coppul.ca/projects/SPAN%20AgreementApril2012revWEB.pdf Members: 19 of 22 COPPUL full members Format Archived: Journals and optional less-managed process for unique monographs Selection: Custom collection analysis, risk analysis Archive location: Distributed, libraries and storage facilities Retention Period: Varies. Low-Risk, until December 31, 2022 (10 years), Moderate-Risk and Higher-

Risk, until December 31, 2036 (25 years). Ownership: Archive holder (usually the original owner) or gifted to the Archive holder Validation: Varies by risk category. Access/Delivery: Not specified. Business Model: Annual member fees to cover program costs including ingest and validation at

member sites. Governance: SPAN Management Committee appointed by COPPUL Board of Directors, composed

of representatives from four (4) libraries participating in the Network, including representation from various sizes of libraries, more than one province, various areas of expertise (e.g. Library Director, Technical Services, Collections Management, etc.), and of Archive Holders, Builders, and Supporters.


Program Name: Five College Library Depository Website: https://www.fivecolleges.edu/libraries/depository Link to MOU: Not available Members: Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College, Smith College, and

the University of Massachusetts, Amherst Format Archived: Journals Selection: Journals deposited by members become shared copies. Archive location: Centralized at Five Colleges shared library storage facility Retention Period: Not specified Ownership: Transfers to the consortium (Five Colleges Inc). Validation: None. Access/Delivery: Request via shared catalog. Digital and physical delivery. Business Model: Cost-sharing through the consortium membership fee. Governance: Existing consortium governance. No separate governance for this program.


Program Name: Florida Academic Repository (FLARE) Website: http://csul.net/node/774 Link to MOU: http://csul.net/sites/csul.fcla.edu/uploads/SUSSC_Policy_APPROVED_March_2012r.pdf Members: 11 members of the State University System of Florida Format Archived: Journals and monographs Selection: Shared storage copy. Volumes deposited by members become shared copies. Archive location: Centralized at University of Florida storage facility Retention Period: “Permanent transfer”, “material that is donated to the facility is expected to remain

in the facility” Ownership: Transfers to the University of Florida Validation: Volume-level review for physical condition Access/Delivery: Digital delivery preferred. Physical volume for in-library use only. Business Model: Annual assessments to fund operating costs of the shared collection facility. Governance: Council of State University Libraries (CSUL)


Program Name: Midwest Collaborative for Library Services (MCLS) Shared Monographic Print Storage Project

Website: http://mcls.org/blog/?p=1697 Link to MOU: Not available. MOU being developed. Members: 8 academic libraries out of approximately 300 MCLS members (academic and

public) Format Archived: Monographs Selection: Custom analysis by Sustainable Collections Services (SCS) based on holdings overlap

and circulation Archive location: Distributed, libraries and storage facilities Retention Period: 15 years. Ownership: Original owner Validation: Volume-level review for physical condition. Access/Delivery: Digital delivery preferred. Physical volume for in-library use only. Business Model: Libraries absorb own expenses Governance: Not finalized


Program Name: Orbis Cascade Alliance Distributed Print Repository (DPR) Website: http://www.orbiscascade.org/index/cdmc-current-work Link to MOU: http://www.orbiscascade.org/index/cms-filesystem-action?file=collection_development/alliance_repository_mou_final.doc Members: All 36 members of the Orbis Cascade Alliance Format Archived: Journals Selection: By publisher: JSTOR Arts & Sciences I and II and American Chemical Society journals Archive location: Distributed, libraries and storage facilities Retention Period: 25 years. Ownership: Archive holder (usually the original owner) or gifted to the Archive holder Validation: Volume-level review for physical condition. Access/Delivery: Digital delivery preferred. Physical volume for in-library use only. Business Model: Libraries absorb own expenses Governance: Existing consortium governance. No separate governance for this program.


Program Name: Pennsylvania Academic Library Consortium (PALCI) Print Journal Archive Website: http://www.palci.org/collection-management/ (scroll down) Link to MOU: Not available. Members: About 10 of PALCI’s 71 members Format Archived: Journals Selection: By publisher: journals published by the American Chemical Society (ACS), the

American Institute of Physics (AIP), and the American Physical Society (APS). Archive location: Distributed, libraries and storage facilities. Penn State keeping a dark archive copy,

others are light archives. Retention Period: 10 years, to Dec. 31, 2019. Ownership: Archive holder (usually the original owner) or gifted to the Archive holder Validation: Issue-level review for physical condition and completeness. Access/Delivery: Digital delivery preferred. Physical volume for in-library use only. Business Model: Libraries absorb own expenses

Governance: Existing consortium governance. No separate governance for this program.


Program Name: Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC) Shared Collection Website: http://www.wrlc.org/offsite/ Link to MOU: http://www.wrlc.org/offsite/storpolicies.html Members: All 9 WRLC members Format Archived: Journals and monographs Selection: Shared storage copy. Volumes deposited by members become shared copies. Archive location: Centralized at WRLC storage facility Retention Period: Permanent. Ownership: Original owner. Validation: Minimal review for physical condition. Access/Delivery: Digital delivery preferred. Physical volume for in-library use only. Business Model: Cost-sharing through the consortium membership fee. Governance: Existing consortium governance. No separate governance for this program.


Program Name: Western Regional Storage Trust (WEST) Website: http://www.cdlib.org/west/ Link to MOU: http://www.cdlib.org/services/west/docs/WESTProgramStatement.pdf Members: 103 libraries including 3 sets of consortial memberships Format Archived: Journals Selection: Custom collection analysis, risk analysis Archive location: Distributed, libraries and storage facilities Retention Period: 25 years, until Dec. 31, 2035 Ownership: Archive holder (usually the original owner) or gifted to the Archive holder Validation: Varies by risk category. See validation standards at http://www.cdlib.org/services/west/docs/WESTStandards_Issue_VolumeLevelValidation.docx Access/Delivery: Digital delivery preferred. Physical volume for in-library use only. Business Model: Annual member fees to cover program costs including ingest and validation at

member sites. Governance: WEST Executive Committee, composed of representatives from nine (9) WEST

members (with representatives for Archive Holders, Archive Builders and Non-Archive Holders), elected by the full WEST membership.

Documents

Appendix F. ReCAP Cost Estimates